Jerry_Atrick

When I was based at Fairoaks, there were several points where I used to hop over the 20nm leg... But being based at Dunkeswell, the closest way over the Channel to France is, as I recall, due south, abuot 85nm over the water and not too many watercraft about. Plus there are a lot of MIL restricted areas.. Beats my risk aversion tolerance so I head east, stop at Lydd for a refuel (able to claim back the VAT/Sales Tax in Aussie terms) and coast out to Calais (as it is a lot cheaper and a short ride from the airfield has some rather delicious local fare at very good prices - also instrument approaches are free). This year, I am going to be a pax/navigator to Aero Freidrichshafen (AERO | April 18 – 21, 2018) and am taking a pax to somwhere in Italy (Raduno 2018 - FLYER Forums). And if all goes well, I will make Birdsville this year...

@kasper - wasn't agreeing withyour self-critique, but the sentiment of your post... One of the things that struck me in the video of the impossible turn was the controlled conditions. And the bloke who did most of the talking said that although he could do it with, was it 150' or 200' of altitude, we personally wouldn't do ti with less than 300'. That should give him some margin for other fctors such as atmospheric conditions. But I liked their general message - don't stop learning at the pass of the flight test - get to know your plane and practice various scenarios. If you pratrice them enough, you will encounter many of the variable factors @farri mentions. Also important dead stick on a dead prop.

In some respects, yes, but a hell of a lot easier to get out of I would imagine than an inverted PA28.

I can honestly say, I don't know if it was an instructor, reading it in a magazine/book or that I just worked it out, but I have always flown where possible withing gliding distance of an airfield/strip or if not, always had at least one identified field within gliding distance identified when enroute. There are times when you can't avoid tiger country - in my case crossing the channel - in which case I have the life vests on and the inflatable raft ready to go. Some won't do it without a full immersion suit - given I am always planning a ditching near one of the plethora of commercial ships when I fly across the channel so my risk assessment is the gear I carry is enough. However, if I were flying across Bass Strait, I may take a different approach. FYI - 6 microlights flying across the channel from France to England. They may have a LAPL (Euro wide sub ICAO licence), but my guess is they are mainly NPPL...

I was in Hyderabad, which has a large muslim population and is the home of Biryani, apparently. The local team took me out for dinner one day and got me their hottest dish.. It was lovely - a little heat to start but immediately gave way to a delicious spice blend. They could not believe I could eat it in total comfort. I thought I worked it out... The Indian food in the UK is full of ghee, but over there, it is used sparingly, if at all.

Supposed to be? I would say it is given the extent they went to get some to expat UK people in France and the fact people from here flew into it

In a BBC radio interview, the commissioner of one of the police forces (think it was the Met, but not sure) responded to an answer asking why no more money is made available to get more Bobbies on the beat by sayung they were increasing their funding to combat cybercrime as this is growing at an exponential rate and can cause society wider and greater harm than the relatively odd lunatic (not comforting for the past, present and future victims of crimes perpetrated by these oddballs). I suppose it's down to priorities and understanding - the only crime in 1@Oscar[/uSER]'s case I think that was committed as attempted obtaining money by deception (which is a specific form of theft here). As it was attempted, even if the ol' Bill nicked him, they would have had a moutnain of paperwrok, got them to the magistrates court (too small I think for the crown court) and the maj would have given him a good behaviour bond (or even congratulated him on attempting to stick it to rich (because they are flyers) Aussies as Australia keeps whipping them at cricket (mostly, anyway).. Seriously, out here, when the police turn up for a minor crime, the are simplyclerks filling out one of the bits of paper needed to claim on the insurance.. It's un unfortunate fact of life when there are a lot of people and they haven't increased the police budget to deal with it all.

Even honest folk embelish stuff a bit on Linkedin. I recently had a colleague say he was shocked at how accurate my profile was... It is thhe only social network I am a member of. When I am looking for work (as per now), I open it up, otherwise it is taken private. Back to topic, sorry to hear you got scammed 1@nunans[/uSER]; with many high-value items, it doesn't matter where in the word they are sold from, the price doesn't change too much. With all the know your client and anti-money laundering regs that most countries sign up to, the scum still manage to get through...

Oh no! Does that mean there is one less option in Aussie towns, these days? Or have they been replaced by curry houses?

Maybe getting hypersonic drones adapted for takeaway delivery will mean we can order truly authentic food from the country of origin (well there are some other practicalities to overcome - customs, hygiene laws, etc) Foreign food is almost always adapted to local tastes, however, there are some countries that seem to keep authenticity better than others. In the UK, as @kgwilson points out, they have actually originated some Indian dishes - the Bhalti being one - which was on offer in a restaurant in Hyderabad when I was there. UK Indian food is generally quite good, especially at Brick Lane market.. There is so much competition, that poor curry houses fast disappear. Oriental food here, by contrast, is very ordinary, although not as bad as the Czech Republic where it is basically noodle soup of the local cuisine. By contrast, Australia (well, the cities, anyway) has great Oriental food; I couldn't tell the difference between what I could get at Stanley Market in HK and sme restaurants in China Town in Melbourne.. there were some dishes I dared not try in both places, too. As for Thai, I prefer it in Aus to Thailand... Aus keeps it authentic, but tweaked to western tastes, which is probably why I love it. Over here, it is basically the local bland Chinese with a bit of lemongrass thrown in. We make Thai dishes at home - never eat out. I used to go up and down the Newell Hwy a lot. Most towns had at least one pub (usually two - frequently the Commercial and the Union). a KFC (pre Maccas grip on fast food everywhere), a Chinese and a F&C/takeaway. I am sure it is better these days. The Chinese food was virtually the same in each town and much like here.. The pubs served steaks, Wiener Schntizels, Chicken Kievs, Snags, sometimes a fish of some sort. I am sure there were a couple of other staples, but whatever they were, the menus at each pub was virtually identical. I honestly can't recall any other cuisine, except in the bigger towns like Dubbo, where some motels had restaurants, too. I'm sure it has changed since the late 90s where, after I drove my gf to Lightening Ridge from Melbourne (and back), we hve not had another chicken kiev or scnitzel since. However, the F&Cs are much, much better than you can get here.

'bout the same time I was getting my takeaway from Prahran, then ;-) Was he snagged by CASA? I'll get me 'at and coat; and glass of Penfolds Koonunga (makes a change from Wolfie)...

Takeaway curry flown 500 miles to France Now, I am going to lend support to Phil's view that BBC is fake news.. The story tells it as if this was just a bunch of expats. Nope! It started with the idea of an expat who lives in Bordeaux to get a curry from his favourite curry house to Saucats in the TBM because he missed them so much. As he is a forumite on the uk flyer forums, he stuck it in the fly ins and social events topic and there were quite a few who decided they would be in. Although Fracne is famed for food, it is only famed for French food, I guess. Having said that, the best country to get an Indian takeway outside of India is Britain (well, in the countries I have had an Indian takeaway - which are Australia, India, Britain and South Africa). As per the video, the cost was £32/head and I thought, given it was to be held in January (winter) and I am not IFR qualified, chancing the weather within my personal tolerances was a step too far, given I could have had the same meal for about £10 - £12/head (not including alcohol) by nipping down the road to them (sort of). I have eaten at Akash and it is one of the better non-Indian Indian meals I have had.. There was a poncy Indian restaurant in Melbourne in the '90s called Gaylords (from memory). Bludday expensive and not as good. My last Indian in Australia was in Prahran in 2005.. The sag aloo was made from tinned spinach! As the owner says, he'll deliver to Australia (if the money is right).. Snap yourself up a decent Indian meal...

Substitute CAO with the correct section of the ANO and RAA with LAA and you basically have the same for the NPPL(A) here in the UK. I think the stall speed is lower (but maybe thing VLA and ULA). I think the UK allow an extra few kilos for a/c fitted with a BRS system. The problem here is licensing (or certification) is a dogs breakfast thatnks to the CAA's preoccupation with bureaucracy and useless rules - CASA certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. The BGAA operate the glider pilot certificate regime, the BMAA operate the microlighting licence regime (I think its NPPL(M), etc. It is called a National Private Pilots Licence for political reasons - it is sub ICAO and you cannot fly CoA aircraft in it - for the NPPL(A) only those that are permit (permit to fly) aircraft all operated under the LAA (although I think some a/c can be registered under either category and they allow one to fly a CoA version of those a/c - but don't quote me on that one). I recently went to a microlight school and asked what a PPL has to do to be able to fly microlights. His response was even the CAA couldn't tell him so he does differences training and puts them through the flight test and if they pass, they are issued a NPPL(M). The NPPL is as equally useless in other countries as is the pilot cert... However, in Europe, the UK, France, Germany, Spain,, Austria and I think Italy have reciprocal agreements to allow each other's country national rated (rather than PPL) in permit aircraft, ULA, VLA and I think ML. In all countries, they can transit at least class D. I believe other countries provide the ability for one to request permission to fly through their airspace on such licenses/certificates and such a/c.. at a cost (Belgium, from memory, is about EUR60 per application and each entry into their airspace requires a separate permit. The reality is that their is an overlap between the higher end of the permit category at least (and some microlights - I understand the Ikarus C42 is quite a little beast in terms of range and speed, for a microlight) and the lower end of the GA spectrum - but if one wants to be able to operate in controlled airspace, they can (class D at least) subject to conducting necessary additional training. As I mentioned above, certain permit types with the necessary equipment can individually be approved for IFR (using the IMC rating - a sub ICAO instrument endorsement available for many years to PPLs here because of the wx variability - it has higher minima and I think can't be used in class A airspace). One doesn't have to kit their permit steed out with the gear, nor do they have to do the IMCr, but they now have the option to. Its permission is not extended to other countries.

I guess like most conversations, this has started on one subject and meandered onto others before it will close. I had a quick look through ICAO annexes 1, 2 and 11; there was no mention that only ICAO standard licensed pilots were to access airspace.. There was mention of the rules under which flight is permitted and the level of ATS provided.. Of course, there may something buried in another annex or docs... but as @kgwilson mentioned, it would mean most European and a good deal number of other countries would fall foul of ICAO. Non ICAO pilots can even cross international flight boundaries where there are agreements in place. As mentioned, I see many RAAus pilots navigating throughout Australia - navigating remote outback regions is not as easy as more populated areas. And with GPS, which admittedly is not infallible, but for me, anyway, has been pretty reliable, it is easier to navigate. I have seen a/c without a transponder get a clearance - they make an orbit or two so the controller can identify their primary return and they are allowed in. If the controller is given reason to believe the pilot or a/c is not capable or there is concern of a conflict, they simply refuse permission. to enter. In the UK, the NPPL (and in EASA land, the LAPL) training requirements are lower than PPL. If you have a single engine piston rating (rather than balloon, etc), you now largely have the same privileges as a PPL holder. I think there is additional training (cut down version of RTF and actual exposure to controlled airspace), but it is optional. I was based at Fairoaks which is in Heathrow's control zone - then class A. There were a handful of LAA machines based there operated by NPPLs that never had a PPL and they seemed to manage pretty well. They happily flew to France, Germany, Italy and Austria; the did other European countries as well.. As an aside, this may or may not be good news: CASA Restructure confirms GA Branch - Australian Flying

Well he does exhale a disproptionate;y large amount of hot air; and he exretes methan producing substances originating from bulls...

We are talking different train tracks... I agree - there needs to be more training on low level flying an preseving one's life. As an example, I had not had 1 minute of low/slow training nor short field take offs/landings, yet in the GA world, I passed my PPL (twice)! It is forums like this where I have learned a lot (as well as my test flights - one in Aus and 1 here). But the track we are talking is denying access of RAAus pilots access to class D airspaces, especially when it would route them low over tiger country. The radiotelephony is simple, navigation is not that difficult.. If ATC can accommodate, they will give a clearance and any conditions; if not, one may orbit unitll they can get a clearance or re-route. There are many GA pilots that may struggle if they don't get an immediate clearance...

@turboplanner - many RAAus a/c are higher peformance or similar to GA.. a tired C150 would find it hard to keep up with a Jab and in a Warrior, I followed an RV7A to Italy - well he got there quite a few hours ahead of me. In the UK (well, all of Europe - not sure about the USA), LAA and European equivalents enjoy access to airspace and as I mentioned (at least in the UK) they can fly IFR and night if a) suitably equipped, b) the individual a/c is approved by the LAA and c) the pilot is certified IMCr (IR®) or night (for NVFR). Times move on and so does the tech. I recall in about the mid 90's taking a look at a Jab at Tocumwal, had about the same performance as a C150 (but one had to be a little more on the ball in a stall). My point is that if the a/c is capable and the pilot has sufficient training (not necessarily PPL - I watch youtube videos of RAAus people navigating fine over vast expanses of Aus - see @cscotthendry's - they're the bee's knees ).. No reason why those a/c couldn't do a class D transit, ATC and RPT/Bizjets/charters movements allowing... There are many instances where a class of regulation is set and then progresses as tech progresses. In Europe, the lower end of the GA market has had the posterior fall out of it because of the advances in LAA.. All that expense is no longer worth it. Even I (who loves my PA28s and TB10s) am looking to move into the 21st century. [edit]Corrected a plethora of typos[/edit]

RIP - very sad.. I wasn't aware gliders had fold-away turbines... (haven't been keeping up with things in the gliding fraternity). Last I saw gliders with jets was at Tocumwal where they had, what I recall a Blanik (but could be wrong) rigged with a soli A-frame to the rear of the canopy with some turbine. Last I heard, it had some problems and didn't get past taxying.. that was too many years ago to think about.

I lived in Bendigo for the second half of 2003 - loved it.. the airfield is bloomin' fine... Though, there were no RAA clubs there that I recall at the time... Unf, the UK hailed SWMBO did not take to it like I did (she doesn't like flying, nor as it turned out, 4x4'ing) Funny story I have about being at the Irish pub, of which the name I can't recall.. But he late (and great) Jim Steynes' brother and sister worked there.. and that is where I almost came a cropper...

Whoa @spacesailor.! No one is suggesting that pilots on a RAA Cert are to suddenly extend to the realms of commercial flying, flying complex machines, etc. However, to deny an RAA cert pilot access to airpspace where the RAA pilot that can meet the procedural (rather than arbitrary bureaucratic) requirenments, particularly when artificially denying such access is, well criminal in my mind. Given that the rules are there because of the perceived (and possibly historical) unreliability of engines and lower level of training (in real terms, de minimis - who needs all that PPL theory as a PPL, anyway, so its the pract differencess only), then it seems an anomaly to me to send them over tiger country where if the poop stops the fan, then it's most likely curtains rather than allowing them to route over open pasture where they stand a better chance. By procedural, I mean they know how to use the radio, the radio has range, they should have a transponder (mode C as a minimum - are you guys requierd to use mode-s, yet?), they can naviate and the comply with ATC requirements. I name a few GA pilots that wouldn't meet all of the above criteria... As an FYI, PPLs here can take paying passengers on joyflights - or officially termed, "familiarisation" flights. They can't themselves be remunerated, but can operate under the auspices of a club of flying school... I think there is a max time limit and there has to be various declarations to the passengers.. Why PPLs can even be remunerated instructors here (to PPL level if they have CPL theory, otherwise to the equivalent to a RAA Pilto Cert)..

The idea the everytime a department puts in a rule and are stubborn about fixing it, give up and work around it or incur an unecessary expensive burden, especially when lives are at stake, is not the workings of democracy. Maybe RAAAus should enlist the assistance of AOPA, other GA representatives and even ATC representative bodies to help educate CASA that RAAus a/c and GA aircraft can mix comfortably and there are no turf wars (there may be a requirement to teh RAA Pilot Certificant to have a controlled airpace endorsement or just a flight radio telephony licence...) I am sure the RAAus boffins have thought about all of this...

Not allowing RAAus a/c into class D is completely nuts! I can understand not over major conurbations, or lose to the airport or normal routing in (ATC would give a clearance to avoid these areas within Class D). But within all of a class D zone or area is nuts - CASA probably has blood on their hands with that rule. AIUI, permit, ultralights and microlights are permitted in Class D with ATC approval. In fact gliders operate in Class D here... Suitably equipped permit a/c are allowed to fly IFR and night (each a/c has to be individually approved). Are RAAus a/c falling out of the sky? Isn't there a couple of MPs with RAAUs or PPL (or other) tickets who can exert parliamentary pressure on this guy and his board cronies: Key Appointments to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Unintended negligence isn't in the vernacular of DvS, but I guess this is an Aussie reference if legal speak doesn't include recklessness, etc. I looked for the [edit after fixing quotes] Barooga case name in the thread but couldn't find it.. But for argument's sake, I don't think it matters as there are other cases in this thread (e.g. fellow falling off a precipice). In DvS, two reasons were cited as the ratio for being able to find (unintended) negligence; a duty of care and the neighbour (proximity) principle. a) the presence of a snail in the drink could be attributed to negligence in the manufacturing process to ensure there were no obvious contaminants; and b) the glass was opaque - not allowing the consumer - whoever they were - to inspect the contents before drinking them. This, IMHO, is sound reasoning.. Something totally within the control of the manufacturer while they are producing their product coupled with the inability for a reasonable consumer to be able to identify and avoid the tortfeasannce (apologies for misfeasance, earlier). In 1932,the threshold is set - it has to be within the reasonable control of the defendant and it also has to be that the plaintiff (in the UK now, complainant) could not have reasonably discovered and avoided the tortfeasance beforehand (which is effectively contributory negligence ). However, from the cases above and the very quick skim of the Barooga case (1@turboplanner[/uSER] - can you pls let me know the case name again - couldn't find it), there seems to have been, what would have been considered in 1932 reasonable efforts by the defendant to educate the plaintiff of the dangers (and the man on the Clapham omnubus would have known anyway), but somehow, negligence was found. In the case of the person who did not see the signs or realise that a fence was there to put a barrier between them and the precipice - and where theyintentionally climbed over it and suffered injury or death as a result of falling of the precipice or land giving way beyond the fence... if we apply the two test from DvS - was it within the control of the controlling authority? No. Was it reasonably foreseeable that to go beyind the signs and climb a bondary fence may put you in danger - yes.. If this was the case that went to the house of lords in 1932, then it may have failed on the criteria set by D&S. The fact that the plaintiff missed the signs and climbed over a barrier fence would have indicated they were of the Darwin theory gene and, well, let the loss lie where it falls. Although, there are exceptions, of course.. A toddler or young-ish child (say, less than 12 years old) may be different. And what about the autistic or otherwise mentally incapacitated adult? Would not some of the blame lay in their carers/parents who should be keeping an eye on them? From the Barooga case, I am guessing some kid sadly hit their head on snag or submersed log. We were always taught to check rivers, gorges and indeed some sea areas (rocky areas) before diving in. Unlike a manufacturer, does an authority have an obligation to clear a snag in a popular swimming area of a river the second it falls or gets blocked there? If it was there for weeks, especially after being notified, then I would say yes.. But if it appeared after a regular inspection, it is bad luck of the plaintiff, but, really, they can swim about before diving in to check there is no debris that will connect with the flour-filled scone.. (again, I only skimmed this case so I may be totally off).. DvS set the concept of negligence to the neighbour - but it limited negligence to what was in control of the manufacturer and to where the neighbour couldn't reasonably be expected to identify the mischief and even if they could, they could not reasonably avoid it. Since then, it appears the law is willing to find negligence beyond those simple concepts and this is what I mean by the threshold of negligence has changed - it is easier to find it today than what it was.. And thee are many commonwealth countries where negligence is cited as obiter that helps that. BTW - I am no lawyer - though so don't think anything I have said is an anyway qualified.

Unintended negligence isn't in the vernacular of DvS, but I guess this is an Aussie reference if legal speak doesn't include recklessness, etc. I looked for the [edit after fixing quotes] Barooga case name in the thread but couldn't find it.. But for argument's sake, I don't think it matters as there are other cases in this thread (e.g. fellow falling off a precipice). In DvS, two reasons were cited as the ratio for being able to find (unintended) negligence; a duty of care and the neighbour (proximity) principle. a) the presence of a snail in the drink could be attributed to negligence in the manufacturing process to ensure there were no obvious contaminants; and b) the glass was opaque - not allowing the consumer - whoever they were - to inspect the contents before drinking them. This, IMHO, is sound reasoning.. Something totally within the control of the manufacturer while they are producing their product coupled with the inability for a reasonable consumer to be able to identify and avoid the tortfeasannce (apologies for misfeasance, earlier). In 1932,the threshold is set - it has to be within the reasonable control of the defendant and it also has to be that the plaintiff (in the UK now, complainant) could not have reasonably discovered and avoided the tortfeasance beforehand (which is effectively contributory negligence ). However, from the cases above and the very quick skim of the Barooga case (@turboplanner - can you pls let me know the case name again - couldn't find it), there seems to have been, what would have been considered in 1932 reasonable efforts by the defendant to educate the plaintiff of the dangers (and the man on the Clapham omnubus would have known anyway), but somehow, negligence was found. In the case of the person who did not see the signs or realise that a fence was there to put a barrier between them and the precipice - and where theyintentionally climbed over it and suffered injury or death as a result of falling of the precipice or land giving way beyond the fence... if we apply the two test from DvS - was it within the control of the controlling authority? No. Was it reasonably foreseeable that to go beyind the signs and climb a bondary fence may put you in danger - yes.. If this was the case that went to the house of lords in 1932, then it may have failed on the criteria set by D&S. The fact that the plaintiff missed the signs and climbed over a barrier fence would have indicated they were of the Darwin theory gene and, well, let the loss lie where it falls. Although, there are exceptions, of course.. A toddler or young-ish child (say, less than 12 years old) may be different. And what about the autistic or otherwise mentally incapacitated adult? Would not some of the blame lay in their carers/parents who should be keeping an eye on them? From the Barooga case, I am guessing some kid sadly hit their head on snag or submersed log. We were always taught to check rivers, gorges and indeed some sea areas (rocky areas) before diving in. Unlike a manufacturer, does an authority have an obligation to clear a snag in a popular swimming area of a river the second it falls or gets blocked there? If it was there for weeks, especially after being notified, then I would say yes.. But if it appeared after a regular inspection, it is bad luck of the plaintiff, but, really, they can swim about before diving in to check there is no debris that will connect with the flour-filled scone.. (again, I only skimmed this case so I may be totally off).. DvS set the concept of negligence to the neighbour - but it limited negligence to what was in control of the manufacturer and to where the neighbour couldn't reasonably be expected to identify the mischief and even if they could, they could not reasonably avoid it. Since then, it appears the law is willing to find negligence beyond those simple concepts and this is what I mean by the threshold of negligence has changed - it is easier to find it today than what it was.. And thee are many commonwealth countries where negligence is cited as obiter that helps that. BTW - I am no lawyer - though so don't think anything I have said is an anyway qualified.

I ageed with both Ron and Turbs posts. IMHE, there is elements of truth in both of them. Although, I am happy to say these guys are still going strong: No Licence Fishing Boat Hire Melbourne | Bluey's Boathouse As a 16 year old, I used to take the train from Ormond to Mordialloc and hire from these fellas (there were a couple of others I used to hire from as well, but alas, no web sites) for fishing - snapper mainly. I can't recall the hp on the engines and to be honest, I know some were inboard and some were outboard - oddly, although I have a pretty good memory despite poisoning my brain, the only boats I can recall starting (using a button to an electric starter motor) were from a crowd that rented out orangey/beigy boat. I think it was Mordialloc Boat Hire - who I preferred as they were inboard motors and properly enclosed cabin. Can't recall the motors in the boats of Bluey'sbut they look outboard now (and I think they were, then - I have vague memories of squeezing a plunger on something - but there was another boat hire comany that had red and white livery - so may have been them). I agree with Turbs in that negligence has to be proved. I can only go on English and Welsh law, of which when I studied it, it drew from Aussie, Canadian, US and NZ cases as well, and I am guessing the same went for all other ex colonies. The concern I have is that the threshold of negligence has changed as society has evolved and there is an increasing expectation that insurance will pick up the tab anyway. I am not familiar with different Aussie state's civil legal procedure, but in the US, where juries decide, the plaintiffs' counsel will always play the poor victim against the business who is insured.. generally speaking, there seems to be a move to the insurance company footing the bill. I think this is wrong. And this is why I agree with Ron. I don't agree with the strict liability of the pilot/operator in an accident. The ATSB//AAIB/NTSB and other countries reports are littered with reports where an accident has been the result of some oversight (or fraudulent practice) of the maintenance shop, where whatever the problem was, was not easily identifiable, if at all, by the pilot in their daily check. Shouldn't the maintenance shop be liable in that case? However, for most other things, maybe the pilot is responsible.. For example, an engine failure that could not be foreseen occurring over tiger country - should the pilot not fly a route where they have a field suitable for emergency landings dotte along their route, even if it means a detour and added cost? But then, if you're flying from YMMB to King Island, does the px not accept a degree of risk should the engine fail over Bass Strait (for flying across the Channel here)? Always tough questions. UK has seen fit to remove doubt as to who's liable. A procedural expediency, but not always fair.